Reading over one of the comments on Hugh Hewitt's blog entry today, commenter athingortwo characterized the American voter as, "by and large, a sentient being." His point was that during the upcoming debates, the viewers would decide for themselves which candidate was sentient and rational and which wasn't.

I agree completely that the American people are, for the most part, practical, rational people who pursue their lives through their families and their local communities, supported by hard work and all resting on American liberty, structured as it is on the theory that the "pursuit of happiness" is an inalienable [sic] right. Unfortunately, voting patterns and party support do not necessarily correlate with the policies that such such practicality might suggest. 

Living in California as I did for nearly eighteen years, first as a student and later as a senior level manager during the Internet boom, I had the opportunity on many occasions to cross philosophical swords with otherwise intelligent people who were reflexively liberal (the meaning of the words conservative and liberal have indeed become hijacked, but I'll pursue that idea later). Defending what seemed to me practical thoughts on policy and national direction was in those days to invite derisive or even angry invective. Oddly, so long as the affinity with conservatism or Republicanism were hidden, it was surprisingly easy to gain agreement on these same questions.

Moving to Texas (the DFW area) seeking better schools at a better price and more favorable environments for both political and business activities, we were surprised to find the opposite case. Again, most people my wife and I have debated with in either academic or social circles could rationally discuss politics and national issues, such as the proper level for the national safety net, the need for improved education and personal responsibility, abuses by judges, the need for a strong defense, etc. (Iraq excepted), and any disagreements were/are conducted along rational lines. But just infuse party identification in any way, and suddenly the rational dialogue seems to disappear, heralding a shift to emotional appeal. Now there were (thankfully) people whose instincts led them to support more conservative policies, but very few could actually articulate why they felt a given policy was right or wrong, but they supported their affiliation anyway.

I know brilliant, otherwise rational historians who, when building an argument for their fear or hatred of the Bush administration, fall back on statistical or heresay evidence that they would rip apart as unqualified if it was presented in the same way within their chosen field of study. Their arguments are logical and well thought out, certainly, but the usual rigor applied to the foundational data is relaxed when disucussing political issues (they would, of course, be aghast at this suggestion, but they don't see it).

I am coming to the conclusion that voters largely identify with their party for emotive, rather than rational reasons. I am coming to believe that the institutions of party evoke emotional responses quite apart from policy realities. It seems very much as if people identify with a party not because they agree necessarily with its policy platform, but because their community does. They may define their community in different ways--family, workplace, friends, church, fellow hobbyists--but by and large, they go with the flow in the groups whose membership means the most to them. If someone comes from a family of Democrats, or if their co-workers are overwhelmingly of one party or the other, or their chosen social circle is, then they are too, no matter what they think about the component issues.

So I agree that most Americans are not only sentient but perceptive--in all areas except for this one area. For some reason, when it comes to politics, we emote. I for one am hoping that in this election season, the appeal of security, experience, and common sense will prevail over the vague message of change for the sake of change that seems to be the only touchstone of the Obama campaign.